Comments on: Report: NBA proposes franchise tag, non-guaranteed contractshttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/
Basketball - NBC SportsSun, 02 Aug 2015 22:40:57 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: purduemanhttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40561
Wed, 11 May 2011 22:33:06 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40561LPad: No matter how you slice it, franchise tags are bogus, hokey and bring a new set of problems. The only reason that the NBA would push for a franchise tag is to help mostly smaller and medium sized market teams retain their stars. In order to do so, they would have to be granted an exemption from any money going over the salary cap the team incurs as well as the maximum number of years that they were allowed to offer in as the overall package.

The two things under the current CBA that I find most troubling though are:

1) The goofy “salary matchup rules” for trades, which oftentimes make useless players with expiring contracts like Sloth Curry and Kwame Brown inexplicably more valuable than starting players. The mere fact the Lakers were able to acquire Pao Gasol because slug Brown had a big expiring contract is ludicrous44!; and

2) The current rookie salary cap, which runs only three years (plus one additional restrictive year), for first round picks favors the players WAY too much. The reason that this flat out doesn’t work is that now we’re in the age of “one and done-ers” who come into league and need a lot of time, coddling and coaching up, these players once they finally become useful are then free to shop their services.

Theoretically that means that the worst teams wind up investing a lot of time and development on many of the best young players who come into the league severely under-coached just then have to turn around and have to way overpay them to retain them or watch them leave without compensation, when usually they have done little up until that point to justify the money that their agents demand (and get because by then they are known entities and usually players on the rise).

Thug Andrew Bynum is a classic example of this. He spent most of his first three years either injured or playing on the second team. Then he turns around still at only 22 years of age and the Lakers are forced to pay him over $10M/year on a new long term deal when up until that point he simply hadn’t earned it.

Rather than monkeying around with a hokey, contrived franchise tag system, what the league should address is putting in place a binding arbitration system for players with three years up until they’ve played six years in the league before they can attain free agency. If that players team wants to either negotiate or accept arbitration, fine; if not then the player becomes an unrestricted free agent.

Bottom line? There’s no way Bynum at only 23 years old and not having been a regular starter should come anywhere close to getting paid the reported $13M+ he’s slated to receive next season. The NBA needs to copy MLB’s CBA in this regard, and also allow teams to “buy out” future free agent years if they choose to do so.

1) how is this different than the Larry Bird rule that the league got rid of? The only difference I can see is that the team can’t exceed the salary cap in making this deal.

Which leads me to my second question: if the team can’t exceed the salary cap then wouldn’t they have to make their team worst to keep the franchised player?

3) What is the time period between franchise tags? For example, would OKC be able to tag Durant one year and then Westbrook the next. If not, how does OKC keep Westbrook from going to LA when his deals up and OKC can’t offer him as much money as LA or because Utah decides they need a point guard because they franchised Durant (when his current deal is up).

]]>By: trbowmanhttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40555
Wed, 11 May 2011 21:31:52 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40555There won’t be basketball next season. These guys make the NFL/NFLPA look like best buddies.
]]>By: aboogy123456http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40542
Wed, 11 May 2011 20:21:03 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40542Yea I agree, I think basketball is so much of a team game but the league gets caught up too much in the stars, and it’s really all about money which I understand.

my point was I think Bosh (like others) isn’t worth that much, but if you compare him to the rest of the $14 mil people around the league, he’s not bad at all. And the system is messed up, but i think from a basketball standpoint it was much better by the heat to get bosh, rather than 2 mid-level players, whoever they may be.

]]>By: purduemanhttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40540
Wed, 11 May 2011 20:05:53 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40540aboog… the real underlying problem with the current NBA salary structure IMO is that there simply aren’t enough “name” players to go around (which in turn drives up the price for those who have achieved that status).

This is a direct by-product of Commissioner Stern’s conscience marketing decision to market individual stars, rather than promote team play. Yes, that strategy has been in large part successful for making the NBA more internationally acclaimed, but it’s also at the expense of many small to mid-market sized teams who feel that they can’t financially succeed without having at least one recognizable “star” (hence once again name recognition means paydays more than what those players are oftentimes worth).

Most small and mid-market teams though, thanks to La Bum James little offseason staged act, are now realizing that you don’t necessarily need a star or two to compete. Chicago has only one star and they aren’t doing to badly, leading the league in home attendance this year. Despite being basically forced to trade Mello, watch out for Denver in the next couple of years too.

I don’t care how you try and justify it, but Bosh isn’t worth anywhere’s near $14M/year, just as Carlos Boozer isn’t worth anywheres near the $20M/year Chicago gave him either. But as long as the NBA continues to market “star power”, demand will continue to simply outstrip supply and continue to drive salaries to higher and higher levels.

Do you for one minute think that Jack Nicholson would bother much with the Lakers if Kobe were traded and the team suddenly went into rebuilding mode with a bunch of unknowns? I doubt it, and what adds to the problem are the “one and done-ers” who now rarely have any name recognition coming out of college too.

]]>By: aboogy123456http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40537
Wed, 11 May 2011 19:52:11 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40537good points but you’re way off about Chris bosh. He’s getting $14 million a year, which is not really the type of money a number one player gets, and he isn’t a number one. Miami got a steal paying each of those guys only $14 million while carmelo and Amar’e each get $20 million.

“Think how much better Miami could have been if they had that $ available to fill out their roster (but that’s another story)”

There’s nothing they could have done that would be better. if you look at the free agents out there, you’re not getting anything for $14 million better than having bosh.

]]>By: jsprunnerhttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40531
Wed, 11 May 2011 19:28:12 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40531What’s missed in all this is that the changes the league wants to make are not necessarily designed to benefit the league. They are primarily aimed at protecting owners from themselves and each other. Nobody forced ATL to give a max contract to Joe Johnson (they also gave Bibby a 3-yr deal and their best PG was already on their roster!); nobody made Memphis give $80 million to Rudy Gay (seemingly unwarranted at this point), and Eddy Curry did not use a gun to get the contract placed in front of him. And probably the most egregious “max” signing this offseason was that of Chris Bosh – certainly a nice player, but he’s not a #1 guy, he can’t lead a team anywhere on his own, and people don’t come out to see him. Think how much better Miami could have been if they had that $ available to fill out their roster (but that’s another story).

They really should just put a “hard cap” in place with a minimum salary floor similar to the NFL. Also, the NFL’s franchise tag is not designed to let a team keep a player indefinitely into the future. The 1st year the player gets an average of the top 5 at the position; consecutive “franchise tags” in subsequent years require significant raises, which is why Carolina did not try to franchise Julius Peppers again – they would have had to pay him ~$20 million for a single year. Despite the current lockout, the NFL owners really are in a better place than the NBA owners.

I hope the NBA figures it out. The playoffs have been an absolute blast this year…..

]]>By: goforthanddiehttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40526
Wed, 11 May 2011 19:04:10 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40526As long as the franchise tag keeps players from Melo-ing, I’m all for it.
]]>By: redstar504http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40524
Wed, 11 May 2011 18:56:04 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40524The league needs a true franchise tag because you are 100% right there are too many Atlanta’s out there either:

1.) Overpaying to acquire or keep talent
2.) Being bent over backward by star players that turn 3 year deals into 2 year deals by forcing in most instances (not Denver’s case) foolish trades by the deadline in year 3

Just think in today’s NBA if Jordan had the same career path would he have stayed a Bull?
-NBA Rookie contracts are 2 year deals with team options in years 3 and 4

-Jordan’s first year the Bulls get 38 wins, crack the playoffs, 7 seed out round 1
-2nd year 30 wins, 8 seed, swept out round 1
**The Team could void here odds are they don’t**
-3rd year 40 wins, 8 seed, swept out round 1

At his point MJ could have started making noise about maybe not wanting to be a Bull tired of falling short and playing for a losing franchise (which Chicago was prior to MJ). He would have seen the Lakers and Celtics (the same ones that swept him out 2 times) take turns winning the championship his first 3 years. If he had the mind set of today’s NBA star he would likely been angry that his roster going into the year was made up of nobodies, has been’s, and rookie’s. He could have forced his way to LA or Boston the Bulls would have never been able to hit their stride that year like they did and the great Bulls teams of the 90’s would have never been.

The NBA needs a franchise tag for that one reason. Developing a team takes time sometimes that one extra year of locking a guy down can make all the difference (it would have for the 87-88 Bulls). Limit the tag to a year or two of use, even one year would allow you to at least get the full length of a contract and let a team avoid the foolish move my star for junk February trades.

What is being proposed is useless and almost exactly what is already in place today. The scarey thought is in negotiations usually one starts high and works down, but the fact that this is their starting point is a joke. It means they are not serious about a tag.

I just get the vibe that the NBA likes the movement, trade demands, super teams, and the like. They don’t care about the smaller markets because they look at them as interchangeable parts. If the market doesn’t work then move the team and some other small city will be glad to have an NBA team.

]]>By: purduemanhttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40519
Wed, 11 May 2011 18:42:13 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40519If I were an NBA owner, I’d let next season and if need be the season after that get cancelled unless the current absurd fully guaranteed contracts go away. The NBA needs to take that page from the NFL; if you can’t make the cut, you don’t get paid. If you get cut? Then let the open market determine what your value is. That’s the way successful American corporations work!

IMO, the most idiotic thing in all of professional sports is the current NBA trade restriction guidelines that make slugs like Eddie Curry more valuable because they are a slug due to their expiring contracts than that as a player. If there’s a more asinine thing in professional sports, I’d sure like to know what that might be.

As long as a “franchise tag” has to be mutually agreed upon with the player, all that that’s basically doing is revising the “Larry Bird” rule, thereby allowing players current teams to outbid all other teams for a players services. Where’s the harm in that?

]]>By: cosanostra71http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40515
Wed, 11 May 2011 18:36:52 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40515I like both of these things. In most industries, if you are not performing to the level that you are being payed, you are fired. Also, I think that their version of the franchise would return a lot of power back to team management that has been taken from them by the players.
]]>By: hnirobert3http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40510
Wed, 11 May 2011 18:25:12 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40510I’ve never been a fan of the franchise tag in the NFL. If a player is due to be a free agent, he should be allowed to be a free agent and pick and choose where he wants to go. I think they should increase the amount of money/contract years that a team can offer someone for staying with their team. They shouldn’t be held hostage though.
]]>By: teke184http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40509
Wed, 11 May 2011 18:21:35 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40509Non-guaranteed contracts, as you said, should be a non-starter because there’s always the possibility of team options built into the back end of the deal.

The franchise tag, though, should be considered after the events of the past year. Superstars holding teams hostage, between The Decision, LeBron insisting his cronies be part of the front office, the Melo and Deron Williams issues, etc., it’s gotten g*ddamn ridiculous.

The idea should be that a team would have the leverage to get something for the player if they want out, NOT that a player should be able to dictate which team they’re going to, such as Melo chasing away all suitors but the Knicks. It should be a way to buy time for the team to get a deal rather than a way of permanently keeping a player where he doesn’t want to be.

]]>By: musillyhttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40504
Wed, 11 May 2011 17:40:08 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40504Fair point, I think part of the problem with Johnson’s contract is that the Hawks bid against themselves, as the Magic did with Rashard Lewis. Another interesting thing–to me personally at least–is that the contract can be read as an admission of a certain lack of ambition. Are they going to win a championship in the next five years, given their contract situation? Highly unlikely. I read the contract as suggesting something like “no, we won’t be champions, but we’ll be pretty good for the next few years and we’re okay with that.” It was definitely an interesting contract/decision.
]]>By: sknuthttp://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40503
Wed, 11 May 2011 17:36:17 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40503There are too many teams like Atl and Johnson where they have to overpay due to things out of their control ie.location, this seems to be isolated to the NBA. Thus having a tag would help those teams keep their star players and enable more competitive balance. Which is what makes all fans watch. I forget how good the NBA can be because my team (Wolves) stink its no fun as a fan to not care but by keeping better players on all teams not just a few its better for the league.
]]>By: aboogy123456http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/05/11/report-nba-proposes-franchise-tag-non-guaranteed-contracts/comment-page-1/#comment-40498
Wed, 11 May 2011 17:11:53 +0000http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/?p=23461#comment-40498I don’t think the Joe Johnson contract was actually a dumb move. I think Atlanta understands he’s not worth that type of money, but their options were limited. They either sign Joe johnson, which pretty much guarantees they are in the playoffs for a while, which brings more money to the team. I think they knew that they are not going to attract any other stars to come to Atlanta, so this is the best that they could do.

Joe johnson is obviously not worth that type of money, but if you think that ATL could have made a smarter move, please comment, and I know it’s just a side point to this article but I thought it was interesting.